Originally Posted by
KrisPistofferson
As far as I can tell bdcheung is asking honest questions, not being disrespectful or name calling, and you can't handle it so you keep using the parent/child analogy, so I tend to wonder if you're simply trolling for a negative reaction so you can come down hard on him. Also, no one who's on top of the totem pole ever "understand the desire for transparency and accountability," but it exists nonetheless so people don't abuse their power. Will bdcheung become a bank robber if you don't put him in his place?
I can handle it and I'm doing what I can do to put things into a moderators perspective.
He hasnt done anything wrong so I have no reason to come down on him....better yet, I have no desire to come down on him. I have nothing against a mature, well mannered, polite debate.
True about abuse of power but there must be a certain amount of unexplained power....I use the parent/child analogy because it best fits.
Originally Posted by
bdcheung
I'll start from the end and move upward.
In my hypothetical, UserX did not make any disrespectful posts. However, resultant of the thread's disappearance it is impossible for UserX to defend himself or appeal the decision of ModeratorJoe (not to mention that the Forum Guidelines state, clearly, that "Any decision taken by the administrators and moderators is final and must be respected"). This presents two problems: retaliatory sanctioning by ModeratorJoe without any opportunity of appeal for, or any evidence upon which to base the defense of, UserX. Secondly, that the forum guidelines dictate the finality of moderator decisions, and the demand for respect not only implied but expressed in that rule, present enormous burdens to users and leave them defenseless against any moderator who may be acting irrationally or unfairly. (Personal sidebar: telling users they must respect the decision is redundant if the decisions are worthy of respect. But as I have been contending, sometimes those decisions warrant not respect but review)
Finally, a recent criminological study found that 98% of bank robbers fed on breastmilk as a child. The study therefore concluded that breastmilk is a "gateway" substance for a life of crime.
Users agreed to the forums policys. /case With very few exceptions a moderator shouldnt have to explain his or her actions. If a mods does something that he or she feels is in the best interest of the forum then so be it.
There are occasions when uncalled for retaliation by a mod against a member could occur. In those situations, I'll agree with your 2 points. How can a member who was 'targeted' defend himself if the thread was deleted versus locked? They cant and it would look suspicious to me as well. All I can say in that instance is to report your concerns to a different mod and move on.
Mods have alot of options in regards to actions against threads. I have, accidently, performed the wrong action so its possible another mod may have done the same thing.
I'm off to work....dont want you guys to think I'm bailing out.
If members abided by forum policy there'd be no need for moderation.
Jim